In the early days of nuclear power, the United States made money on it. But today opponents have so complicated its development that no nuclear plants have been ordered or built here in 12 years. The greatest fear of nuclear power opponents has always been a reactor "meltdown" (堆内熔化). Today, the chances of a meltdown that would threaten U.S. public health are very little. But to even further reduce the possibility, engineers are testing new reactors that rely not on human judgement to shut them down but on the laws of nature. Now General Electric is already building two advanced reactors in Japan. But don't expect them ever on U.S. shores unless things change in Washington. The procedure for licensing nuclear power plants is a bad dream. Any time during, or even after, construction, an objection by any group or individual can bring everything to a halt while the matter is investigated or taken to court. Meanwhile, the builder must add nice-but-not-necessary improvements, some of which force him to knock down walls and start over. In every case where a plant has been opposed, the Nuclear Regulation Commission has ultimately granted a license to construct or operate. But the victory often costs so much that the utility ends up abandoning the plant anyway. A case in point is the Shoreham plant on New York's Long Island. Shoreham was a virtual twin to the Millstone plant in Connecticut, both ordered in the mid-'60s. Millstone, completed for $101 million, electricity for two decades. Shoreham, however, was singled out by anti-nuclear activists who, by sending in endless protests, drove the cost over $5 billion and delayed its use for many years. Shoreham finally won its operation license. But the plant has never produced a watt of power. Governor Mario cuomo, an opponent of a Shoreham start-up, used his power to force New York's public-utilities commission to accept the following settlement; the power company could pass the cost of Shoreham along to its consumers only if it agreed not to operate the plant! Today, a perfectly good facility, capable of servicing hundreds of homes, sits rusting.
36. What has made the procedure for licensing nuclear power plants a bad dream? (A) The inefficiency of the Nuclear Regulation commission. (B) The enormous cost of construction and operation. (C) The length of time it takes to make investigations. (D) The objection of the opponents of nuclear power.
37. It can be inferred from Paragraph 2 that _____. (A) it is not technical difficulties that prevent the building of nuclear power plants in the U.S. . (B) there are not enough safety measures in the U.S. for running new nuclear power plants (C) there are already more nuclear power plants than necessary in the U. S. (D) the American government will not allow Japanese nuclear reactors to be installed in the U.S. .
38. Any objection, however trivial it may be, can _____. (A) force the power companies to cancel the project (B) delay the construction or operation of a nuclear plant (C) cause a serious debate within the Nuclear Regulation Commission (D) take the builders to court
39. Governor Mario's chief intention in proposing the settlement was to ______. (A) stop the Shoreham plant from going into operation (B) help the power company to solve its financial problems (C) urge the power company to further increase its power supply (D) permit the Shoreham plant to operate under certain conditions
40. The author's attitude towards the development of nuclear power is _____. (A) negative (B) neutral (C) positive (D) questioning
electricity for two decades. Shoreham, however, was singled out by anti-nuclear activists who, by sending in endless protests, drove the cost over $5 billion and delayed its use for many years.
